talltex wrote:
1. There have been reports of a second video that shows the knife, but so far it's just that...a report. Who is withholding it from the public, and exactly what "legal process" needs to be completed that would be holding up the release of a video that could possibly show justification?
2. His prior history and current parole status has no bearing whatsoever on the decision to shoot or not. The only consideration is what is occurring at that precise moment the trigger is pulled.
Well one reason for not releasing any video or making the public force a release is to prevent claims that the agency or prosecution is trying to bias the public in some manner. Now that isn't the only reason but one of many possibilities. As to prior history not having any bearing, that just is not true legally or practically, in today's policing. Don't think it should be true either for police or a citizen who has to use force.
They would certainly not want to release a video that made them look bad, but the benefits of releasing a video that shows there was no wrongdoing on the officer's part would far outweigh any unlikely claim that they were trying to bias the public.
That is true legally...go into a courtroom as a prosecutor,and try to introduce into evidence someone's prior criminal history, without having the door opened by the defense, and see if you don't get a sustained objection. Unless the defendant testifies, the prosecution cannot bring up past history to impeach the defendants credibility. The sentencing phase is a different ballgame, but that's after someone has already been found guilty.
I'm not sure what you mean by the phrase "today's policing" but the rules of evidence haven't been changed to accommodate it.
So a police officer running a plate and finding out someone is wanted, has multiple violent felonies, previous arrests for assaults on peace officers, etc, would and should be at the exact same threat level as if they were approaching someone without any of that history? That they were told that the guy was suicidal or mentioned suicide by cop shouldn't alter their perceptions his possible actions?
Now you're just throwing out words and scenarios that were never even discussed in this topic. Of course an officer can make use of any information to adjust his threat level...no one on here has said anything to that effect or even suggested that they "would and should be at the exact same threat level" regardless of knowledge of prior criminal acts. BUT...a heightened threat level is NOT justification for use of deadly force. You cannot just walk up and shoot someone because you know he is a "bad guy"...he has to DO SOMETHING, at that particular time and place, that justifies pulling the trigger...no matter what he has done in the past.
"I looked out under the sun and saw that the race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong" Ecclesiastes 9:11
"The race may not always go to the swift or the battle to the strong, but that's the way the smart money bets" Damon Runyon
I didn't realize running a license plate provided so much info on a driver's background. I'm sure no one has ever loaned a car to another person such as their spouse, neighbor, child or friend and only the registered owner drives it. I'm impressed those few little letters are such a key to one's history, background and past. Impressive.
Convoluting the discussion with a bunch of ancillary unrelated gibberish doesn't advance one's argument. I would think someone that has reported they are wanting to commit suicide or suicide by cop would be less of a threat to the cops. That's admitting they do not intend to hurt the cops but want to provoke the cops to shoot them.
Still nothing has been said or shown yet justifies shooting the guy like it appears in the video. Hopefully, the other video shows it was justified and they decide to release it. Transparency is the best way to alleviate the concerns and regain trust.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
talltex wrote:Now you're just throwing out words and scenarios that were never even discussed in this topic. Of course an officer can make use of any information to adjust his threat level...no one on here has said anything to that effect or even suggested that they "would and should be at the exact same threat level" regardless of knowledge of prior criminal acts. BUT...a heightened threat level is NOT justification for use of deadly force. You cannot just walk up and shoot someone because you know he is a "bad guy"...he has to DO SOMETHING, at that particular time and place, that justifies pulling the trigger...no matter what he has done in the past.
Because that has never happened, certainly not in this thread right? You are right that I'm stretching things a bit. The scenario was not to try and shift the discussion but explain a point I was trying to make that you had issue with.But lets go back then. You said that such info " has no bearing whatsoever " and I think it does. I believe that info like that would make it reasonable to be at a higher threat level and respond in a more direct manner than an officer otherwise might. To me I think most cops like anyone else play the what if game in their heads and try not to shoot if they don't have to. Having info of that type on a suspect would seemingly make it reasonable to respond with force when an officer may not without that info. Now it's not like they should get that info and just walk up and shoot the guy but that info can certainly be used as part of the decision making process.
Last edited by EEllis on Thu Sep 10, 2015 1:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
mojo84 wrote:I didn't realize running a license plate provided so much info on a driver's background. I'm sure no one has ever loaned a car to another person such as their spouse, neighbor, child or friend and only the registered owner drives it. I'm impressed those few little letters are such a key to one's history, background and past. Impressive.
Convoluting the discussion with a bunch of ancillary unrelated gibberish doesn't advance one's argument. I would think someone that has reported they are wanting to commit suicide or suicide by cop would be less of a threat to the cops. That's admitting they do not intend to hurt the cops but want to provoke the cops to shoot them.
Still nothing has been said or shown yet justifies shooting the guy like it appears in the video. Hopefully, the other video shows it was justified and they decide to release it. Transparency is the best way to alleviate the concerns and regain trust.
I have been trying to be as polite as possible. If you don't wish to have a polite discussion then I will not be responding further to your comments.
I was being polite. I was also being direct, plain spoken and truthful.
I still am.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
EEllis wrote: To me I think most cops like anyone else play the what if game in their heads and try not to shoot if they don't have to.
As politely as I can and know how, aren't you making an assumption these two deputies fall in to your "most cops" category? If that is the case, you seem to be providing more weight on what you assume to be true rather than what is shown on the one video we have seen. Is that not a fair and accurate assessment of your position?
I am not trying to attack you or be mean. I am just trying to understand your position as you seem to almost always give more credence to what you assume, speculate to be true and other potential variables over what is seen.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
Lawsuit has been filed. Apparently, the second video shows the guy that was shot was still holding a knife. Looks like we shall see what the judge and jury think of his level of threat at the time he was shot.
The lawsuit claims Flores’ civil rights were violated and that officers used excessive force in the Aug. 28 shooting. It seeks unspecified damages, including medical and funeral expenses.
“The deadly forced used by defendants Vasquez and Sanchez against the decedent was unjustified and objectively unreasonable under any circumstances,” the lawsuit says.
One video of the shooting shows Flores, 41, with his arms raised before the deputies opened fire. A utility pole obscured one of the suspect’s arms in that tape.
A second video shows Flores holding a knife. Sheriff Susan Pamerleau has declined to release the second video.
The deputies were responding to a domestic disturbance. The lawsuit says Flores had already given himself up when he was shot.
“Mr. Flores’ actions in surrendering with his hands raised, with or without a knife, reflected that there was no immediate danger of bodily injury to the officers or others,” the lawsuit said.
The lawsuit also seeks a court order directing the sheriff’s office to release all video and audio recordings, in their original forms, related to the shooting.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
Thomas J. Henry is the attorney hired by Flores' family.
Speaking on behalf of the family said the road to justice is a long one. "When you put your hands up in this country, I believe most people think that you are giving up and that you are no longer a threat," said Thomas J. Henry. "This is going to have an extremely important impact on how the Sheriff of Bexar County, how the District Attorney in Bexar County handle this situation as it relates to a fair, transparent and unbiased investigation," Henry said.
$600,000 for a local race is an incredible amount.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
In my 62 years on this earth I do not believe I have ever read a headline as follows: Texas Jury Awards Family Five Million Dollars Against Police in Wrongful Death Lawsuit....
Maybe this case will be the first but my gut tells me "I doubt it." We will see how it plays out in the courtroom.
dlh
Please know and follow the rules of firearms safety.
dlh wrote:In my 62 years on this earth I do not believe I have ever read a headline as follows: Texas Jury Awards Family Five Million Dollars Against Police in Wrongful Death Lawsuit....
Maybe this case will be the first but my gut tells me "I doubt it." We will see how it plays out in the courtroom.
dlh
If someone is gonna do it, its gonna be this man. His commercials claim ridiculous amounts of money awarded to clients from injury lawsuits.
https://youtu.be/wHcTqtaYeDE https://youtu.be/8h9yIt3OES4
If he can get $21 million from a company vehicle accident, $5 million for a wrongful death might not be too hard for him. I dont think he would take the case unless he was pretty sure he had a good shot.
“Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity.”
― Horace Mann
dlh wrote:In my 62 years on this earth I do not believe I have ever read a headline as follows: Texas Jury Awards Family Five Million Dollars Against Police in Wrongful Death Lawsuit....
Maybe this case will be the first but my gut tells me "I doubt it." We will see how it plays out in the courtroom.
dlh
Did you see or hear that that was the amount being sought? I haven't heard that in any of the links listed on this page, but I would be surprised if the amount sued for wasn't higher than that.
"I looked out under the sun and saw that the race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong" Ecclesiastes 9:11
"The race may not always go to the swift or the battle to the strong, but that's the way the smart money bets" Damon Runyon
